Some are arguing that the Dems should go along with the "surge"

[Jackpine Radical]

or whatever the hell you call it. The idea is that if we don't give them the additional troops, the Puggies will be forever claiming they could have pulled Iraq out of the fire but the Dems didn't let them, so it's ALL OUR FAULT. So therefore we should give them more rope so it is once and for all clear that they fucked the whole thing up and there was no saving it.

Bullshit. We've seen what they do with rope. Let's not give them any more.

Th public is fed up with the war. The average American now knows it can't be salvaged, no matter what the Puggies say. I think the Dems would be taking at least as much risk by not stopping the Puggy military tomfoolery as by letting it go ahead. If we let the Puggies do what they want without protest, we will just be showing ourselves up for wimpy boobs who lack the guts to say "Enough!"

[illinoisprogressive]

1. the only ones calling are repukes who need to have Jrs ass covered

[rodeodance]

5. even Levin is thinking this (see Raw story today)

[Cobalt-60]

2. I've got their surge..

right here.
Any Democrat that supports this should just color their asses gone after the next primary in their district.

[zonmoy]

6. I figure any democrat that doesn't call and vote for impeachment

and vote to fund only the pullout of troops from iraq will face the same fate or at least should.

[Az_lefty]

3. some can go jump in a lake...

this is designed to boost W's legacy and nothing more. No more dead soldiers for the neo-cons!

[derby378]

4. That's like asking Cindy Sheehan to throw a Molotov cocktail at Arlington Cemetery

And the really sad thing is that some Democrats just might do it. My head hurts.

[ToolTex]

7. A surge is a buildup by another name. That is how Viet Nam got to 58,000 dead.

Say "O" and Surge this, w! We will both enjoy it. (Actually, I wouldn't. I'd vomit on top of his gnarly head as he was gagging).

[necso]

8. Democrats will be blamed in any event,

because the people who will be doing the blaming: don't like to acknowledge their mistakes, misunderstandings, ignorance, etc ("their" taken broadly: them and theirs; as throughout this essay for pronouns); generally refuse to accept unpleasant realities or to shape their "plans", "thinking", etc, around realities (not self-interest, ideology, etc); rely on propaganda pounded relentlessly into people's heads to replace and supersede perspective, perception, knowledge and understanding (etc); are just seeking advantage and trying to avoid responsibility, accountability and being judged (and exposed) -- that is, they're driven by no principles worthy of the name.

But there remains the battle for people's perceptions. And given history, it's understandable if one has concerns that the propaganda will win out, as it often has in the past -- at least enough to adversely influence one's future prospects.

However, the battle for people's minds can't be won by doing no more than taking defensive positions.

Moreover, you're either in the reality camp, or you're not. There's no middle ground -- only degree of delusion.

Here's how I see it:
* We don't have nearly enough available troops (of the right types) in our armed forces to "pacify" and hold (indefinitely, completely) even Baghdad alone;
* Iraqi "security" forces ("government") are unreliable;
* Iraqi "security" forces ("government") aren't likely to become reliable and capable in the foreseeable future;
* A likely use of additional US forces is going after the Mahdi Army, which will likely prod the fighting to take on a (much) more-pronounced element of Shia-against-Shia fighting (ie, which will likely expand the civil war);
* The "war" is lost, and there are no cost-worthwhile objectives anywhere in sight;
* Neocon efforts tend to make things worse (eg, many opportunists (etc) are hiding behind our military efforts while serving themselves), and a larger effort will likely mean that things will get even worse;
* Once the door to escalation is opened, it'll be harder to stop future escalations (the place-and-time to draw the line is here-and-now), and the neocons have "plans" for escalation both within and beyond Iraq.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Indeed. You're coming at my point form a different angle

and with a good analysis.

[Hailtothechimp]

9. They will have blood on their hands if they do.

Many (Biden, Edwards, Hillary) already have blood on their hands. To go along now would just be compounding their mistakes.

[Jacobin]

11. You would think they would have learned by now

The dems who went along with the IWR are spinning like a top trying to figure out how to distance themselves from it, deny it happened, apologize for it, or pretend it didn't have any effect.

Apparently, they are very slow learners

[Jackpine Radical]

12. That's the DLC for ya.

Democrats Leaning Conservative
Damned Lieberman Cohorts
Dangerous Loose Cannons

[demigoddess]

13. It can't be won, so I think that Bush wants the dems to pull his a** out of

the fire and then in future elections they can claim the democrats 'cut and run'. Thing is they do not get that most of the country WANTS us to cut our losses NOW, not later. So this thing will back fire. I say withdraw now, that is what the people want. If dems are talked into backing the surge, they will be just as hated as the republican neo cons.